Though no country has yet to achieve absolute gender equality, in 2013 the closest were the Northern European nations. These findings come from the Global Gender Gap Index, published annually by the World Economic Forum. What is the secret to success for the Northern European countries, and who got an “F” this year?
The Global Gender Gap Index 2013 from the World Economic Forum included 136 countries, whose combined population accounts for 93% of the global population. The index was designed to assess gender differences in countries regardless of their level of development, in a way that would yield objective results. Assessing gender inequality is measured in four key areas, where each country is ranked from one (equality) to zero (inequality) and then is given an overall score, which is a percentage of how much the country has managed to close its gender gap. The first area assessed by WEF analysts is the economic participation and opportunity of women, which is measured using criteria such as gender wage equality, female labor force participation, and the ratio of women in high-paying professions. Globally, inequality in this indicator is quite noticeable, with only 60% of the gap closed. An even wider gap can be seen in the second area of the ranking, women’s political rights and opportunities (gap closed by 21%), though that figure has risen 2% from last year. But the gaps in education and health on a global level are hardly noticeable and nearly closed at 93% and 97%, respectively. Furthermore, 25 countries earned the designation of completely equal in education. Overall, since the index was first published in 2006, 80% of the countries have made progress towards equality.
It’s interesting that in the eight years the index has been compiled, the most progress towards closing the gender gap was achieved by Latin American countries: Nicaragua improved by 17.4% since 2006, Bolivia by 16.9%, and Ecuador by 14.9%.

Despite the slowdown in the world economy, the total amount of giving to charity has continued to increase, according to the British organization Charities Aid Formation. The World Giving Index 2013 reveals another curious result: It is the developing countries that are driving growth in charity and the material wealth of individuals isn’t always a sign of their willingness to donate to a good cause.
The World Giving Index 2013 looks at data collected in 2012 from 135 countries and that account for 94% of the world’s population. The study is based on Gallup polls, conducted as part of their World Poll initiative. The statistical data obtained is then interpreted by analysts at the British Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) into three categories: helping a stranger, donating money to charity organizations, and volunteering. The total of these three components determines a country’s ranking in the Index.
The Index leader this year was the United States, which previously held this title in 2011, passing the top spot to Australia in 2012. America came out on top in charitable donations because Americans gave more to needy strangers in 2012. And even while there was relatively stable distribution among the top places across Western countries, this year’s Index was a direct confirmation of a global trend – that people from developing countries are more and more frequently getting involved in such social processes. If you look at the number of people active in charitable giving in absolute numbers and not as a percentage, then India and China are clear leaders. On average, 654 million Indians per month gave some form of help in one of the three categories, while in China it was 531 million and in the U.S. it was 470 million.

By the end of 2014, all of Syria’s chemical weapons and production facilities must be destroyed. Over the next several weeks through the end of March, the most dangerous and toxic elements of Syria’s arsenal will be disposed of. No chemical components should remain by mid-summer and by the end of the year all production and delivery systems will be gone. Ten governments are directly involved in the operations to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons and dozens more are financing the OPCW and the commercial destruction of components. It’s impossible to determine total costs to date, but the scale is quite impressive.
“One of the lessons of the Cold War is that when things fall apart in a country with weapons of mass destruction, some outside assistance is necessary to secure materials, technology, and people,” said Sharon Squassoni, Director and Senior Fellow for the Proliferation Prevention Program at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, in a conversation with WEJ. She described the active participation of a wide coalition of countries involved in the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons.
Back in August 2013, the world’s most eminent analysts weighed the option of U.S. and NATO military intervention in Syrian affairs under the pretext of Assad using chemical weapons against rebels and civilians. But as a result of a diplomatic compromise and the direct participation of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the parties managed to agree on a plan at the end of last August to destroy all chemical weapons and production facilities inside Syria.

There are several kinds of international sanctions that countries can impose against a third party that violates certain generally accepted norms. In extreme cases, sanctions may take the form of a military operation to force the country to return to the legal framework, or to the rupture of diplomatic relations with all its attendant consequences. But most often, the international community punishes a “guilty party” by applying economic sanctions such as a total ban on trade with the offending country, as was the case with Iraq and Yugoslavia. Such comprehensive measures have a serious negative impact on the economy and average citizens. For example, during the sanctions imposed on Iraq after its occupation of neighboring Kuwait, Baghdad′s currency, the Iraqi dinar, collapsed to less than 1/20th of its value against the U.S. dollar  during the period 1990-1995. Iran, which has been under Western sanctions for 35 years, has suffered much more than others. In fact, the entire structure of the economy, including foreign trade and the domestic economy, has undergone significant changes, the effects of which are felt much more by ordinary Iranians than the country′s leadership. It was only as a result of the last round of collective sanctions, when Iran′s oil exports fell from 2.4 million barrels per day in 2011 to about 1 million barrels a day now, that the government “allowed” the moderate Rouhani to talk about potential concessions to the West.

The West accuses Russia of violating the main unspoken principle of the postwar world order – the ban on the redistribution of territory between “civilized” countries. However, this rule has been repeatedly violated in recent decades (for example, witness the emergence of the state of Kosovo on the world political map), when Western countries, acting in the name of the world community, decided that such redistribution is in their interests. The Kosovo precedent, of course, would not justify the actions of Russia in the Crimea, if it were not for one fundamental difference: The peninsula was transferred from one legal jurisdiction to another with practically no bloodshed and no conflict. After all, Crimeans have really always considered themselves to be Russians. The West refuses to officially recognize that the residents of Crimea have a right to self-determination, even though such a right has been declared by all international institutions. It refuses not only because of its reluctance to approve of Russia’s policy, but also  it is obvious that Europe, which is experiencing serious economic problems, is itself experiencing this principle in action: After all, it will have to accept the results of the already announced referenda in Scotland and Catalonia. Even the Venetians, judging by the latest news, are not against restoring their republic.

Twelve years have passed since Jim O’Neill, former head analyst for Goldman Sachs, suggested to the business community that several large and fast-growing economies be grouped together to make investment decisions much easier. Since that time, China, India, Russia, and Brazil have become and see themselves as nations bound by common economic interests and pursuing similar goals. Just how justified the hopes are that they’ve attached to this remains to be seen, but it is already clear today that these states, which recently expanded their ranks to include South Africa, are keeping an eye on both economic and political issues that could become their contribution to the global agenda.
This process is very, important, first and foremost, because the BRICS countries are, on the one hand, intrinsically perceived as non-western (Russia and China were antagonists to the West during the years of the Cold War, India and Brazil were European colonies at various times, and South Africa is a symbol of the struggle between the local population and their alien colonial masters), yet they also strongly depend on the West and play a complementary role to its economic system. If these countries truly intend on becoming the legislators of the world’s economic trends in 30-40 years, they will have to tackle, within that time, the topics that currently dominate global politics. And not tackle them by confrontation with the leading powers, but rather through “creative development” of existing trends.